Memorandum Opinion and Order of Court — United States v. Samson A. Raji, No. 14-po-650 (Dkt. 39, D. Md.)

Summary

In this Memorandum Opinion and Order dated October 30, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Thomas M. DiGirolamo of the District of Maryland dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Samson A. Raji's second pro se petition for expungement of criminal convictions in Case No. 14-po-650 (ECF No. 38). Raji pleaded guilty on August 18, 2014 to offenses including driving under the influence of alcohol under 36 C.F.R. § 4.23(a)(1), was placed on probation for two years, discharged in February 2015, and was denied expungement on August 7, 2015. The new petition sought expungement “to be able to get a better job to take care of my kids.” With no applicable expungement statute, the court looked only to ancillary jurisdiction and, citing United States v. Wahi, found that an equitable expungement request is not factually interdependent with the criminal case and is not a tool to enforce its rulings.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

                        IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                        *
                                                *
                                                *             Case No. 14-po-650
                v.                              *
                                                *
                                                *
SAMSON A. RAJI,                                 *
                                                *
                                                *
                Defendant                       *
                                          ************

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT

         This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s second pro se petition for expungement of

his criminal convictions. ECF. No. 38. No hearing is necessary. L.R. 105.6.

         On August 18, 2014, Defendant pleaded guilty to, among other offenses, driving under

the influence of alcohol in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 4.23(a)(1) and was placed on probation for

two years, which was discharged in February 2015. On August 7, 2015, the Court denied

Defendant’s request for expungement of his criminal convictions. ECF No. 37. Defendant again

seeks expungement of his criminal convictions “to be able to get a better job to take care of my

kids.”

         Because there is no applicable statute providing for expungement in a case such as this

one, the only available jurisdictional basis is the doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction. United States

v. McKnight, 33 F. Supp. 3d 577, 580 (D. Md. 2014). “The term ‘ancillary jurisdiction’ refers to

the court’s power to hear claims that are closely linked to other claims over which the court’s

jurisdiction is otherwise secure.” United States v. Wahi, 850 F.3d 296, 300 (7th Cir. 2017).

         [F]ederal courts generally may invoke the doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction in two
         circumstances: (1) where necessary to permit disposition by a single court of
       claims that are factually interdependent; and (2) “to enable a court to function
       successfully, that is, to manage its proceeding, vindicate its authority, and
       effectuate its decrees.”

McKnight, 33 F. Supp. 3d at 580 (citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S.

375, 379-80 (1994)).

       “[A] request for equitable expungement is not factually dependent on the underlying

criminal case in any sense that matters. Instead, it will always turn on facts collateral to or

arising after the case is over—in short, matters external to the criminal case itself.” Wahi, 850

F.3d at 302.     Thus, the adjudicative facts underlying Defendant’s convictions are not

interdependent with any equitable circumstances that he may claim justify expungement. See

Doe v. United States, 833 F.3d 192, 199 (2d Cir. 2016) (“And the collateral employment

consequences Doe faces today arise from the very fact of her conviction, not from the District

Court’s sentencing proceedings or Doe’s probationary term. For these reasons, we conclude that

Doe’s original sentencing and her motion to expunge are not ‘mutually dependent.’”), cert.

denied, 137 S. Ct. 2160 (2017); United States v. Harris, 847 F. Supp. 2d 828, 834 (D. Md. 2012).

Expungement of Defendant’s criminal convictions also runs contrary to a federal court’s ability

to vindicate its authority and effectuate its decrees, as “[e]xpungement is not a remedial tool to

enforce a ruling in the underlying criminal case.” Wahi, 850 F.3d at 302; see Doe, 833 F.3d at

198; Harris, 847 F. Supp. 2d at 834-35; United States v. Mitchell, 683 F. Supp. 2d 427, 432-33

(E.D. Va. 2010). Because “ancillary jurisdiction does not include a general equitable power to

expunge judicial records in a criminal case,” Wahi, 850 F.3d at 302-03, Defendant’s pro se

petition for expungement of his criminal convictions is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Date: October 30, 2017                                            /s/
                                                    Thomas M. DiGirolamo
                                                    United States Magistrate Judge



                                                2

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.mdd.266324.39.0.pdf
Size: 81,364 bytes
SHA-256: 47fe95f0563979a3211c5dfb93b9c59078fdaa5f039150c23467d9fa0c90b2ee
Our copy: gov.uscourts.mdd.266324.39.0.pdf
Original: archive.org